Well, I will have to ask you to excuse my being so naive. I was mistakenly under the impression that we were discussing potential solutions to innocents being slaughtered. Apparently this is not the case at all, for if it were, we would likely be discussing handguns instead of rifles. What is the argument then-exactly? That if we ban and confiscate "assault" weapons that we will no longer be subjected to mass shootings? No, that can't be it. The Violence Policy Center reports that of all firearm related crime, 86% involves handguns. Their study also shows that on the average, if someone gets shot and killed, 4 out of 5 times (79.4% exactly) it will be with a handgun. FBI Data from 2010 (the most recent available year) shows that rifles accounted for 358 deaths, coming in behind shotguns(373), hands/fists/feet(745), knives(1704) and handguns(6009). Yes, you read that correctly, you were twice as likely to die from hands/fists/feet than by a rifle, and over 16 times more likely to die from a handgun than by a rifle. So I would assume (incorrectly) that rational people would look at these statistics and if they were to argue that guns are the problem, they would concur that handguns are the primary issue. It has just now dawned on me that many gun control advocates want all guns banned/confiscated and are simply using recent events as a platform to make the emotional appeal to do so. It is a good starting point to get "assault" weapons banned, then rifles next, then handguns down the line, then shotguns later, then all weapons. If this is your perspective, then just admit it-you are against private gun ownership and you are more than welcome to your opinion. An opinion shared with you by Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao; all of whom banned guns when they got into positions of power and then proceeded to exterminate 66,000,000 innocent noncombatants, the vast majority of whom were their own citizens. On 11/08/1938 the NY Times reported "Berlin Police Head announces disarming of Jews". On 11/11/1938 the Minister of the interior by orders from Heinrich Himmler(the commander of all German police) prohibited Jews from acquiring,possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jews possession was to be forfeited to the government without compensation. The Germans proceeded to kill 6 million jews. Makes sense to me, if you have power and are after absolute power, disarm as many as possible before killing your detractors. Many will even support your disarming the population. All of these deaths: Hitler 11 million, Pol Pot 2 million, Mussolini 1/2 million, Stalin 7.5 million, and Mao 45 million-happened within the last 130 years. Is your argument that it couldn't happen again? I may be naive, but I'm not ignorant. The mass shootings in this country are incomprehensible tragedies, but it would take quite a few more to add up to 66 million.

brjohn9, here are a few reasons I would appreciate that gun control advocates refute my assertion:
1. The Columbine killers were 17 and 18 years old (not old enough to obtain guns legally) yet purchased all 4 weapons used in their massacre.
2. The Newtown killer was 20 years old (not old enough to obtain guns legally), yet stole all the weapons used in his massacre.
3. 15 year old Kip Kinkel shot 29 people (his parents + 27 students in his school) yet met none of the requirements to legally purchase a weapon.
So my claim is that "people that want (a gun) will find a way to own one". And your response is that this is "totally unsubstantiated and "obviously not true". Where do you get your information? And if your assertion is that no criminals possess fully automatic weapons, then you have completely buried your head in the sand to shield yourself from reality. Please reference your proof to substantiate your claim that criminals don't have automatic weapons.
The Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins reports that approximately 530,000 guns are stolen each year.
The National Institute of Justice found that 1/6 (under 17%) of gun owning felons obtained their weapons through a licensed dealer, 5/6 (over 83%) obtained them from friends, family, associates, or private sales in off the record transactions. As convicted felons, of course, all these men are legally prohibited from acquiring guns under provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
I have at no point said that gun regulations are pointless. I simply recognize the issue of existing guns and question the effectiveness of gun control. Would a ban lessen the number of firearms in this country 10 years from now? Absolutely. Would it stop criminals from owning them? Not in my humble opinion.
You cannot claim my assertions are not valid, I can come up with reams of evidence to support them. So once again, if we are going to have a debate on gun control, please include existing weapons because they are a MAJOR part of the issue. Felons have access to guns, kids have access to guns, the mentally ill have access to guns. A gun ban will not address this.

tstauffer, you have conveniently failed to bring existing weapons into the equation. Ban guns or not, people that want one will find a way to own one. Please refute this point because it is fundamental in the gun control debate.
As for the government regulating us down to how large a soda we should drink-you may agree with this nanny state thinking, but I don't. I see people on this blog make the argument that semi automatic weapons should be banned because on one NEEDS a gun like that. So it stands to reason our government should ban tire swings, cable tv, ice cream and lemonade (after all no one truly NEEDS these things).
I apologize if i've offended your sensibilities by using the term liberals. Yes this may be a generalization, but that's all it was meant to be, a generalization.
We are lucky that it has been several generations since most of our forefathers were forced to take a stand against injustice. You must think it will never be necessary again-I hope you're right.
Until you can make a cogent argument dealing with existing weapons, I remain unconvinced a gun ban will do anything but increase the percentage of gun owners who are criminals.

Why is it that liberals insist on requiring everyone think and act the way they do? I support every liberals right to not own a gun. I am endangering no one and breaking no laws by owning the sig sauer in question in the wal-mart ad. And what exactly do you expect to be the end result if you were even to go so far as to ban the sale of all weapons? There are hundreds of millions of weapons in the U.S. Who do you think will still have them after a ban? Murder is illegal in every state. Making it illegal hasn't stopped it. The people committing these acts do not care one whit about the laws. They will still have weapons and they will still break laws. I'm from CO, the Aurora shooter had multiple movie theaters within minutes of his home showing the Batman movie. Which theater did he choose? the only one which had a ban on guns! a lot of good a gun ban did there. Would it make you feel better to ban guns? Because it most certainly would not stop incidents such as Newtown. Why does Bloomberg regulate the size of sodas one can legally buy in NY? It must make him feel better about the situation, but it doesn't fix the problem, people can still buy multiple sodas. I understand gun control proponents position in wanting something done so incidents like this don't happen anymore, but please, please explain to me how you think gun control would stop them. Just making a law banning the sale or ownership of fully or semi automatic weapons (or all weapons whatsoever) would not induce the end result you are seeking. You are making the false assumption that everyone would behave as you would and not own such a weapon, this kind of thinking is not based in reality.